HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrange County Approved BOA Minutes 21 01 11 Approved 8/9/2021
1 MINUTES
2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
3 REGULAR MEETING
4 January 11, 2021
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Leon Meyers
7 Susan Halkiotis
8 Jeff Scott
9 Kent Qandil
10
11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Taylor
12
13 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
14 Elaina Cheek, Secretary to Board
15 James Bryan, Staff Attorney
16
17 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER
18
19 Chair Meyers called the meeting to order and reminded all parties the purpose of the meeting was to reconvene
20 evidentiary hearings on Cases A-3-20 and A-4-20. Chair Meyers indicated the Board had addressed issues of standing
21 during the December 14, 2020 regular meeting and tonight would be hearing testimony and making decisions on the
22 two requests. Chair Meyers asked staff if there was anything else to add at this time.
23
24 Michael Harvey informed the Board there were various items at their places, including information supplied by the
25 applicant's for both cases, reviewed at the appropriate time.
26
27 Mr. Harvey left the meeting room to check on the applicants for Case A-3-20.
28
29 AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
30
31 There were no additions to the agenda.
32
33 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
34
35 Elaina Cheek indicated the minutes from the December 14, 2020 meeting were not available at this time. Ms. Cheek
36 informed the Board the Department had lost their transcriptionist and was attempting to find a new one. There was
37 general discussion on the cadence of review and on the Board's responsibility with respect to making decisions on the
38 two cases.
39
40 AGENDA ITEM 4: PUBLIC CHARGE
41
42 The public charge was not read.
43
44 AGENDA ITEM 5: Case A-3-20 Quasi-judicial hearing to review a Variance Application requesting a 30'
45 reduction to required County stream buffers.
46
47 Chair Meyers asked for a motion to reopen the evidentiary hearing.
48
1
Approved 8/9/2021
1 MOTION made by Vice-chair Susan Halkiotis to reopen the evidentiary hearing on Case A-3-20, seconded by Kent
2 Qandil.
3 VOTE: Unanimous.
4
5 Chair Meyers declared the hearing open and thanked all those in attendance for observing mask protocols and
6 maintaining social distancing. Chair Meyers asked parties in attendance to identify themselves for the record.
7
8 Alexander Dodson, property owner;
9 Steve Doyle, local realtor and potential expert witness;
10 Brady Herman, Mr. Dodson's attorney (Mr. Herman is an attorney with the Brough Law firm filling in for Kevin Hornik)
11
12 Chair Meyers asked if staff had received any further requests from individuals asserting standing on this matter. Mr.
13 Harvey said no further claims of standing were submitted. Chair Meyers asked Mr. Harvey to present Case A-3-20
14
15 In accordance with LIDO Sections 2.10 Variances and 6.13 Stream Buffers, the property owners have submitted this
16 variance request for their parcel of property, which is further described as follows:
17 • Parcel Identification Number(Orange County): 9890-08-8119
18 • Acreage: 1 acre
19 • Zoning District:Rural Buffer
20 • Watershed Designation: Property is not located within a Protected or Critical watershed overlay district.
21 The applicants are requesting a 30 ft. variance from the normally required 80 ft. County stream buffer along the western
22 boundary of the existing water feature. If approved, development on the property would abide by a 50 ft. buffer from an
23 existing stream.
24 The applicant's argue the required 80 ft. stream buffer prevents development of the property. There is only a 30 ft. area
25 where a single-family residence and septic system could be located. The topography of the lot also limits options with
26 respect to where the proposed residence/septic system can be located and still conform with other applicable land use
27 regulations (i.e. property line setbacks) and Environmental Health standards (i.e. septic system and well setbacks).
28 If the variance is approved, the property could be developed and utilized for residential purposes while a 50 ft. stream
29 buffer is observed from the western side of the existing stream.
30 The State of North Carolina establishes standards requiring area(s) in and around a stream left in a natural (i.e.
31 vegetated) and/or undisturbed state. This area, known as a stream buffer, is 50 ft. in width as measured from the bank
32 of the stream.
33 Orange County requires an additional 15 to 30 ft. of buffer area based on the slope of the property. On the subject
34 parcel there is a stream running along the eastern property line. Due to the topography of the property, the County
35 requires an 80 ft. stream buffer measured on both sides of the stream bank (i.e. 80 ft. required buffer on both sides of
36 the stream).
37 As indicated, the applicants are requesting a 30 ft. variance along the western portion of the stream from the normally
38 required 80 ft. stream. The applicant's argue the required 80 ft. stream buffer prevents development of the property.
39 There is only an approximately 30 ft. area where a single-family residence could be located. The topography of the lot
40 also limits options with respect to where the proposed residence/septic system can be located and still conform with
41 other applicable land use regulations (i.e. property line setbacks) and Environmental Health standards (i.e. septic
42 system and well setbacks).
43 If approved, the property could be developed and utilized for residential purposes while a 50 ft. stream buffer is
44 observed from the western side of the existing stream.
45 The request will not impact the State required 50 ft. stream buffer area.
46
2
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Mr. Harvey asked the Board to enter the agenda packet for Case A-3-20, including all four attachments, be entered into
2 the record of the proceedings.
3
4 MOTION made by Chair Meyers entering the complete agenda package, beginning on page 27 of the agenda, for Case
5 A-3-20 be entered into the record, seconded by Vice-chair Halkiotis.
6 VOTE: Unanimous.
7
8 Mr. Harvey asked that the copy of the power point presentation, submitted by the applicant, be entered into the record
9 as well.
10
11 MOTION made by Chair Meyers entering the complete agenda package, beginning on page 27 of the agenda, for Case
12 A-3-20 be entered into the record, seconded by Mr. Jeff Scott.
13 VOTE: Unanimous.
14
15 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Brady Herman to come forward and present the applicant's request.
16
17 Mr. Herman thanked the Board for allowing him to speak on behalf of Mr. Dodson, the owner of 7218 Sunrise Road,
18 seeking a variance from County stream buffer standards as detailed in Section 6.13 of the Unified Development
19 Ordinance (UDO).
20
21 Mr. Herman reminded the Board they had previously determined Mr. Dodson had standing on this request.
22
23 Mr. Herman asked the Board to accept an affidavit from Mr. Doyle, a local realtor, who was present to testify on the
24 impacts the strict adherence to stream buffer regulations would have on the development and/or sale of the property.
25
26 The Board accepted the affidavit referred to Applicant Exhibit 1.
27
28 Mr. Herman indicated the variance request was to reduce the County's stream buffer requirement but would not require
29 reduction of the State's typically required 50 ft. stream buffer. Mr. Herman reminded the Board the County chose to
30 adopt more restrictive stream buffer standards that the State would require. Mr. Herman indicated the property was not
31 located within watershed protection overlay districts and not encumbered by identified floodplain.
32
33 Mr. Herman reviewed the required findings for variances as detailed in Section 2.10.10 of the UDO and summarized his
34 arguments on the justification for the variance request:
35
36 1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the Ordinance. It shall not be necessary to
37 demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property;
38 Strict application of the County's 80 ft. stream buffer makes the property undevelopable. Property owner
39 cannot comply with various development standards (i.e. stream buffers, setbacks, required septic areas, etc.)
40 and still develop the property. (Mr. Herman referenced maps in Attachment 1 and 2 of the agenda packet
41 denoting the area of the property encumbered by the 80 ft. stream buffer)
42 2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography.
43 Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are
44 common to the neighborhood or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance;
45 The hardship results from the presence of a stream on the eastern side of the property. As depicted in
46 submitted exhibits in the record, the property is severely encumbered by the County's required 80 ft. stream
47 buffer making development of the property almost impossible. The hardship is not a result of personal
48 circumstances and is not a condition common to the public. It is based on the topography of the lot and
49 location of the existing stream.
3
Approved 8/9/2021
1 3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing
2 property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be
3 regarded as a self-created hardship;
4 The hardship is based on the topography of the lot and location of the existing stream along the eastern
5 property line. The applicant had no role in creating or imposing the current stream buffers standards on the
6 property, nor is the applicant responsible for the location of the stream on the eastern property line.
7 4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Ordinance, such that public
8 safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved.
9 Without the variance, the property is undevelopable. The granting of the variance merely allows the property to
10 be developed to support low intensity/density single-family residential housing consistent with County policies.
11 Mr. Herman said the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the UDO and should be
12 granted given the preponderance of evidence demonstrating the hardship and lack of evidence asserting the issue is
13 somehow self-induced or not commonly experienced by other property owners within the area.
14
15 Mr. Herman indicated he would like Mr. Doyle to come forward and offer his expert opinion on the current stream buffer
16 regulations impact on the development and marketability of the parcel.
17
18 Chair Meyers indicated it would be appropriate to have both Mr. Herman and Mr. Doyle sworn in. Mr. Harvey reminded
19 the Board attorneys are not typically sworn, but that Mr. Doyle will need to be (Ms. Elaina Cheek swore in Mr. Doyle).
20
21 Mr. Doyle indicated he was sworn and was a local realtor and contractor with over 16 years' experience. Mr. Doyle
22 indicated the parcel's topography made development very challenging. These challenges are exacerbated by the
23 County's 80 ft. stream buffer requirement. Mr. Doyle indicated it is not possible to locate a dwelling and required septic
24 area on the property, abide by dimensional setbacks from property lines, and comply with the 80 ft. stream buffer. Mr.
25 Doyle indicated without the variance, the property could not be developed.
26
27 Mr. Herman concluded his presentation be reminding the Board the variance was in the spirit and intent of the
28 Ordinance in that the variance would allow appropriate development of the property and not result in a condemnation or
29 taking of property rights. A stream buffer would still be maintained on the property and there will be no mass grading
30 necessary to accomplish development. Mr. Herman indicated the variance requested was the minimal amount
31 necessary to allow reasonable development of the parcel consistent with applicable land use regulations.
32
33 Chair Meyers thanked Mr. Herman and asked if there were any questions.
34
35 Mr. Harvey indicated it was his professional opinion the granting of the variance would not create issues for adjacent
36 property owners with respect to the development/re-development of their properties.
37
38 Mr. Harvey said he agreed with the applicant's argument the property couldn't be developed without some relaxation of
39 required stream buffers given the topography of the lot, compliance with applicable setbacks for structures as enforced
40 by Planning, as well as well/septic system setbacks imposed by the Environmental Health department. There was no
41 evidence in the record indicating reduction of the required stream buffer by 30 ft. will substantially increase water runoff
42 onto adjacent properties or create flooding concerns. Mr. Harvey indicated part of his support for the variance request
43 was based on the applicant's protection of the State mandated 50 ft. buffer along the western portion of the stream with
44 no development activity being permitted to occur within this area.
45
46 Mr. Harvey reviewed the findings of fact contained in Attachment 4 as proposed by the applicant.
47
4
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Vice-chair Halkiotis asked if the Board will need to vote on the three general findings detailed in Section 5.3.2 of the
2 UDO. Mr. Harvey indicated the findings detailed in Section 5.3.2 are associated with special use permit applications
3 and not variance requests. Vice-chair Halkiotis said the Board would have to vote on the findings detailed on pages 59
4 and 60 of the abstract package (Attachment 4) to which Mr. Harvey said she was correct.
5
6 Chair Meyers thanked Mr. Harvey and asked if there were any other questions.
7
8 MOTION made by Chair Meyers to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice-chair Halkiotis.
9 VOTE: Unanimous.
10
11 Chair Meyers asked what was the pleasure of the Board related to the disposition of the variance request.
12
13 Vice-chair Halkiotis said she was in favor of granting the variance given the evidence in the record. Messrs Kent Qandil
14 and Jeff Scott agreed there was sufficient justification for the variance and noted a lack of available evidence in the
15 record refuting the applicant's claims. Vice-chair Halkiotis said she felt better about potentially grating the variance
16 given staff's testimony as well. Mr. Qandil said the facts speak for themselves.
17
18 Chair Meyers reminded the Board the vote needs to be unanimous to grant the variance, as there were only four Board
19 members present.
20
21 MOTION made by Mr. Qandil to approve the variance making the findings contained in Attachment 4 of the abstract
22 (pages 59 and 60) based on the evidence listed on same, seconded by Vice-chair Halkiotis.
23 VOTE: Unanimous.
24
25 Chair Meyers thanked the Board and informed the applicant the variance was granted. He thanked the applicant for
26 their time and patience as well as adherence to the County's COVID meeting protocols.
27
28 The Board took a break to allow staff to clean tables and common areas in advance of the next case.
29
30 Chair Meyers confirmed with Mr. James Bryan that action on a special use permit (approve or deny) was simply
31 majority of the members. Mr. Bryan indicated Chair Meyers was correct in his assertion.
32
33 AGENDA ITEM 6: Case A-4-20— Evidentiary hearing to review a Class B Special Use Permit application for
34 a recreational facility off Old Greensboro Highway.
35
36 Chair Meyers asked for a motion to reopen the evidentiary hearing.
37
38 MOTION made by Vice-chair Susan Halkiotis to reopen the evidentiary hearing on Case A-4-20, seconded by Mr. Scott.
39 VOTE: Unanimous.
40
41 Chair Meyers declared the hearing open and thanked all those in attendance for observing mask protocols and
42 maintaining social distancing. Chair Meyers asked parties in attendance to identify themselves for the record.
43
44 David Mufuka, Attorney for the applicant,
45 Mr. and Mrs. Vishwanath Patil and Vintha Cardoza, the applicant and property owner,
46 Mr. Tim Hess, landscape architect and surveyor for the project,
47 Mrs. Laura Lloyd, 1600 Holly Creek Lane,
48 Mr. Carl Lloyd, 1600 Holly Creek Lane (property adjacent to applicant's property),
49 Ms. Virginia Ferguson, local realtor and resident in the area,
50
5
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Mr. and Mrs. William and Leslie Weidner, 1001 Holly Creek Lane (determined to have standing at Dec 11, 20 meeting),
2 Mr. Bjorn Nordwall, 1111 Holly Creek Lane
3
4 Chair Meyers indicted at the December 14 regular meeting, the Board determined standing on several individuals.
5 Chair Meyers said additional requests for standing were received for Case A-4-20 (since December 11 meeting).
6
7 Chair Meyers indicated the Board would address standing claims first and asked Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd to come forward to
8 summarize their claim to standing on this case. Mr. Lloyd informed the Board they were an adjacent property owner
9 and their residence was the closest to the proposed cricket facility. Mr. Lloyd indicated he had sold the property to Mr.
10 Patil and Mrs. Cardoza and had been supportive of the cricket facility. Mrs. Lloyd indicated the family had owned
11 property in the area for well over 150 years.
12
13 Chair Meyers reviewed the necessary elements constituting standing, including proximity and special damages. Mrs.
14 Lloyd indicated they did not believe they would experience any financial hardships over the development of the cricket
15 field. Mr. Harvey interjected he believed the Lloyds were here this evening to speak in support of the application and
16 were not seeking standing for the purpose of alleging special damages.
17
18 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Nordwall to come forward to summarize his claim to standing (the Board received Mr.
19 Nordwall's standing request form). Chair Meyers asked if the Board had any questions. Seeing none, Chair Meyers
20 asked for a motion.
21
22 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis to grant Mr. Nordwall standing to speak on Case A-4-20.
23
24 Mr. Mufuka asked to be recognized. Mr. Mufuka argued Mr. Nordwall does not have proximity to the proposed cricket
25 fields and did not allege special damages relating to his property. Mr. Mufuka suggested Mr. Nordwall does not have
26 standing.
27
28 Vice-chair Halkiotis said the Board has always erred on the side of caution and were very lenient with determinations on
29 standing in an effort to avoid claims of impropriety. Mr. Bryan agreed the Board's policy was very lenient but indicated
30 decisions on a case are based on the competent material evidence and testimony from those with standing forming the
31 basis of a decision. While the Board may be lenient in recognizing standing, they have always required a solid basis of
32 facts supporting arguments made for and against a project.
33
34 There was general discussion on the need for evidence and testimony versus simple allegations of special damages.
35
36 Mr. Mufuka indicated Mr. Nordwall was not arguing the cricket field would negatively impact his property or create
37 special damages but was arguing there were inconsistences within applicant's statements justifying denial of the
38 request.
39
40 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Nordwall to discuss what special damages would result on this property if the project were
41 approved. Mr. Nordwall indicated the site plan is not explicit in what will actually occurring with the development of
42 parking and disturbance of the proposed cricket field. Granting the special use permit will impact his property values.
43
44 Chair Meyers asked if there was a second to Vice-chair Halkiotis' motion to grant standing. Mr. Scott seconded the
45 motion.
46
47 VOTE: Unanimous.
48
49 Chair Meyers asked if there was anyone else alleging standing. With none, Chair Meyers asked all parties intending to
50 offer testimony/evidence to come forward and be sworn (those individuals not sworn on December 14, 20 meeting).
6
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Ms. Cheek swore in Mr. and Mrs. Carl and Laura Lloyd, Mr. Tim Hess, Ms. Virginia Ferguson, and Mr. Nordwall
2 separately.
3
4 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Harvey to summarize Case A-4-20. Mr. Harvey indicated he was sworn at the December 14
5 regular meeting summarized the case as follows (abstract beginning on page 51 of the meeting agenda abstract
6 package):
7
8 In accordance with UDO Sections 2.7 Special Use Permits, 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses, 5.3.2 Special Uses, and 5.7.2
9 Recreational Facilities, the applicants have submitted a Class B Special Use Permit (SUP) application for a parcel on
10 Atkins Road, which is further described as follows:
11 . Case Number: SUP20-0008
12 . Parcel Identification Number. 9758-52-5171
13 • Acreage: 16.2 acres
14 • Zoning District:Rural Buffer(RB)
15 • Watershed Designation: University Lake Protected
16 The applicants are proposing an outdoor recreational facility for the playing of cricket, specifically 2 outdoor athletic or
17 cricket fields. The proposed Recreation Facility involves developmenVoperation of athletic fields in support of holding
18 cricket sporting matches and practices. Two cricket fields will be located on the 16-acre parcel (PIN 9758-52-5171) in
19 support of anticipated matches.
20 No other recreational activities are proposed for the property. There will be no bleachers, clubhouse, changing rooms,
21 lights, or loud speakers associated with the proposed recreational facility. The applicant is not proposing any outdoor
22 lighting, structures, bleachers, public address system, concession stand, or other facilities connected with the athletic
23 fields. Access to the property will be off Old Greensboro Highway.
24 (Attachment 1 contained the full application package and site plan completed by Mr. Hess).
25 Recreational Facilities is defined in UDO Article 10 Definitions as follows:
26 A use of property occurring indoors and/or outdoors providing recreational amenities, activities, or
27 services for compensation. Activities shall include, but not be limited to: sports played on a court,
28 amusement arcades, bowling alleys, skating rinks, shooting ranges, billiard and pool halls, paintball,
29 rope climbing or obstacle courses, go-kart or motor cross tracks, exercise centers including aerobic
30 and yoga studios, athletic facilities, and gymnasiums.
31 Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO indicates a Recreational Facility is a permitted use of property in the
32 RB general use zoning district subject to the issuance of a Class B special use permit. Per Section 5.7.2 (C) of the
33 UDO, recreational facilities are required to comply with the following submittal and review standards:
34 (1) Submittal Requirements: In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following information
35 shall be supplied as part of the application for approval of this use:
36 a) A description of the exact type [of] facility planned, the amount of area, including
37 the number of members or participants expected, and a site plan showing siting
38 and size of existing and proposed building[s].
39 (Information is contained in Attachment 1 and on the site plan).
40 b) Access, parking, service and recreation areas for all planned facilities or existing
41 facilities.
42 (Information is contained in Attachment 1 and on the site plan. Access to the
43 recreation facility is off Old Greensboro Road, a State maintained roadway).
7
Approved 8/9/2021
1 c) Plans and elevation for all proposed and existing structures and descriptions of the
2 color and nature of all exterior materials.
3 (No structures proposed as part of this project).
4 d) A landscape plan showing, at the same scale as the site plan, existing and
5 proposed trees, shrubs, ground cover and any other landscape materials.
6 (The site plan contains the required landscape plan).
7 e) A signed statement from the owners or operators that there shall be no activity
8 allowed that will have adverse effects on adjacent property. The statement shall
9 also include a complete list of all recreational activities that will take place on the
10 site.
11 (Statement contained within Attachment 1).
12 (2) Standards of Evaluation
13 a) The property shall have direct frontage on, and obtain vehicular access from, a
14 public road.
15 (Site plan denotes the property has frontage on, and obtains access from, Old
16 Greensboro Road (SR 1745), a State maintained roadway).
17 b) Lot size shall be adequate for the method of sewage disposal proposed, and for
18 the proposed recreational uses.
19 (According to the submittal in Attachment 1, the applicants are proposing to use
20 portable toilets, which will be serviced (i.e. cleaned) by a vendor as needed. No
21 septic system is proposed to support the project).
22 c) The site plan should show the boundaries of the site, the distances to the nearest
23 residential structures, proposed or existing access points, parking and service
24 areas, location of outdoor recreational facilities, and location of existing or
25 proposed buildings.
26 (The site plan contains the required information).
27 d) The landscape plan shall be at the same scale as the site plan and should show
28 how the facilities will be screened from the adjacent properties, in addition to
29 proposed or existing trees, shrubs and ground cover.
30 (The site plan contains the required information).
31 e) Elevations of all structures and buildings. The structure shall be of such a nature
32 as to preserve the residential character of the area.
33 (The application package in Attachment 1 indicates no structures are proposed).
34 f) There are no adverse impacts on the adjacent roads or residential property.
35 (The application package in Attachment 1 contains the applicant's response to this
36 standard. Staff comments in Attachment 4 indicate the proposed development is
37 not anticipated to have an adverse impact on adjacent roads or properties. There
38 will be no outdoor lights of speaker system associated with the project. Activities
39 will have to occur during daylight hours. There are no permanent structures
40 proposed for the property. The applicant is not proposing a septic system thereby
41 eliminating potential impact(s)to surrounding wells).
42 As part of the submittal, the applicants have voluntarily offered the imposition of the following conditions:
8
Approved 8/9/2021
1 a. Proposed outdoor athletic fields shall only be used to support the playing of cricket matches and practices.
2 No other recreational activities are proposed for the property,-
3 b. For public safety purposes as required in Section 5.3.2 (B) (2), a street address sign be assigned by
4 Orange County Land Records, consistent with the County Addressing Ordinance, prior to the
5 commencement of recreational activities;
6 c. Cricket play shall only occur from the months of April through October;
7 d. Development/operation of the outdoor athletic fields shall not involve the developmenblocation of
8 bleachers, club house, changing rooms, outdoor lights, or loud speakers;
9 e. Cricket matches shall only be played during weekends (Saturday and/or Sunday) with practices being
10 limited to one day a week for no more than 3 hours during daylight hours;
11 f. Cricket matches are for social/recreational purposes only. Use of the recreation facility will not be part of a
12 professional league and will not involve activities associated with earning prize money or other form of
13 monetary gain for participants;
14 g. Applicant will maintain a 30 ft. land use buffer along Old Greensboro and Holly Creek Lane;
15 h. There shall be no use of Holly Creek Lane to support activities on the property;
16 i. Trash/debris shall be removed from the site at the conclusion of a cricket match;
17 j. Parking and porta potties shall be screened with vegetation and a fence consistent with the submitted site
18 plan;
19 k. Applicant shall secure a driveway permit from the NC Department of Transportation prior to the
20 commencement of land disturbing activities for the driveway off of Old Greensboro Road;
21 1. Development shall abide by the general standards of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as
22 detailed in Article 6 and the specific standards contained in Section 5.7.2;
23 m. In accordance with UDO Sections 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses and 5.7.2 Recreational Facilities, activities
24 allowed to occur on the property shall be in accordance with the submitted application package, site plan,
25 and narrative as reviewed by the Orange County Board of Adjustment. Furthermore, the site plan shall be
26 updated and included as part of the site plan submittal for development permits;
27 n. The applicants shall obtain all applicable development permits from the County consistent with the
28 approved SUP, including but not limited to: Erosion Control; Stormwater;and Zoning Compliance;
29 o. In accordance with LIDO Section 2.7.12 (C) Conditions of Approval, if any condition of this Special Use
30 Permit is held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect;
31 p. In accordance with LIDO Section 2.7.12 (D) Conditions of Approval, the Special Use Permit shall expire
32 automatically within 12 months of the date of approval if the use has not commenced or construction has
33 not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the
34 Board of Adjustment.
35 Staff agrees with the imposition of specific conditions of approval, as summarized herein, to ensure the project complies
36 with the provisions of the UDO in the event the Board determines to issue the Special Use Permit.
37
38 Staff has determined the application is consistent with established submittal requirements, and there is sufficient
39 documentation demonstrating compliance with established development standards as detailed in Section 5.7.2 of the
40 UDO,
41
42 As part of its deliberation(s) the Board will need to determine if the request complies with the general standards in
43 Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), specifically:
9
Approved 8/9/2021
1 a. The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where
2 proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
3 b. The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property(unless the use is a public necessity,
4 in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property);and
5 c. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony
6 with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical
7 development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion
8 thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
9 There are several goals/policies detailed within the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan addressing the development of
10 Recreational Facilities in the County, including:
11 a. Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth consistent with the
12 provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life;
13 b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features,
14 and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character;
15 c. Land Use Goal 5:Life, health, and property safe from hazards.
16 Local residents were notified of the required Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) and the public hearing consistent
17 with the requirements of the LIDO.
18
19 Review of special use permit applications are carried out in a quasi-judicial format. This means that decisions relating to
20 the approval or denial of an application are based solely on the sworn testimony of all parties involved with the case,
21 both those for and against an application, as well as the review of the competent, material, and substantial evidence
22 submitted into evidence during the evidentiary hearing.
23
24 The applicant has the burden of establishing, by the submission of competent, material, and substantial evidence, the
25 existence of facts and conditions that demonstrate the project complies with the various requirements and standards of
26 the UDO. Those opposing approval of the application shall have the burden of establishing, also through the
27 submission of competent, material, and substantial evidence, the specific manner in which the proposal does not satisfy
28 the requirements for approval of the application.
29
30 The Board of Adjustment shall render a decision only on the sworn testimony of all parties and on the competent,
31 material, and substantial evidence submitted during the hearing relating to the approval or denial of the application.
32
33 Per LIDO Section 2.26.4, every decision of the Board of Adjustment shall be subject to review at the request of any
34 aggrieved party by the Superior Court by proceedings in the nature of certiorari. Appeals have to be submitted with
35 the Superior Court within 30 days of the availability of notice of decision. Requirements regarding the notice of decision
36 are located in UDO Section 2.12.5.
37
38 Approval of this request by the Board does not exempt the applicant from securing all necessary permits authorizing the
39 commencement of land disturbing activities, which may include but are not limited to the following:
40 a. Erosion Control and Stormwater permits;
41 b. Environmental Health permits;
42 c. Building permits, including the review and approval of the County Fire Marshal;
43 d. A Solid Waste Management Permit;
44 e. A Zoning Compliance Permit;and/or
45 f. NCDOT Driveway Permits.
46 The approval of the special use permit establishes that the proposed land use is permitted to be developed consistent
47 with the proposal. If the applicant cannot secure required permits authorizing the physical development of the project,
48 as detailed herein, the special use permit may expire.
10
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Mr. Harvey provided the Board with the page numbers of, and summarized the information contained within, the
2 attachment(s) associated with case A-4-20.
3
4 Mr. Harvey pulled up and summarized the site plan denoting proposed athletic field location, parking including primary
5 and overflow, the drive off old Greensboro Road, required landscaped areas, etc. Mr. Harvey provided a summary of
6 staff comments from Attachment 4 of the agenda packet.
7
8 Mr. Harvey asked the abstract package and attachments be entered into the record of these proceedings.
9
10 Vice-chair Halkiotis asked what page the findings of fact for the case began. Mr. Harvey indicated the information,
11 contained within Attachment 5, began on page 167.
12
13 MOTION made by Vice-chair Susan Halkiotis enter the materials into the record, seconded by Mr. Qandil.
14 VOTE: Unanimous.
15
16 Mr. Harvey indicated staff had received an email from a local property owner, Mr. Robert Maitland, expressing support
17 for the project. Mr. Maitland, who is also an attorney, could not attend the meeting. Chair Meyers acknowledged the
18 email.
19
20 Chair Meyers asked if there were any questions for Mr. Harvey.
21
22 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Mufuka to present the applicant's request.
23
24 Mr. Mufuka thanked the Board and summarized the applicant's special use permit application (reading statement into
25 the record):
26
27 Mr. and Mrs. Vishwanath Patil and Vintha Cardoza are the owners of the property and the applicant for the special use
28 permit. This proposal does not represent a money making proposition or an activity representing the owners sole
29 source of income. Both individuals are employed in different fields. This project represents their passion to encourage
30 and promote the playing of cricket. The use of this property will only be for cricket matches. No other recreation
31 activities will occur.
32
33 Cricket playing will occur in a matter that is safe, efficient, and does not disturb adjacent parcels. Cricket is a game
34 played between two teams of 11 players in each team and shares similarities with softball in that it is played with a bat,
35 and a ball. The bulk of the activity is focused around a 22 x 3 yards strip called the "Pitch"which is located at the center
36 of the field(Mr. Mufuka referred to the site plan). The bowler and batsman are positioned at opposite ends of this pitch.
37 Each end also has three target stumps the bowler must hit and the batsman must defend from such a hit. The game is
38 refereed by two neutral umpires that ensure that it is played in the true Spirit of Cricket and within the rules of the sport.
39 (Mr. Mufuka referred to the site plan from Attachment 1)
40
41 There are no more than 15 people on the field at any given time, including the referees, batsmen and fielders. In local
42 play elsewhere, no more than five spectators, if at all, are usually present. We mean to match local standards of good
43 match play.
44
45 Duration of the game varies from four to eight hours depending on the format of the game. Games will be played only
46 during weekends (Saturday and Sunday). Practice is typically held once a week or none in the evening for two to three
47 hours. No more than 40 cars per game day (Saturday and Sunday only). In case of a practice, the number of cars will
48 be less than 10. Players are all responsible individuals known in this local community educated consisting of
49 professionals working in the companies and universities in the Triangle area. Weather permitting, games are played
11
Approved 8/9/2021
1 only on Saturdays and Sundays. Cricket participants play socially and do not play for any prize money or any form of
2 monetary gain or to qualify for external competitions.
3
4 There have been concerns activity on the property will be part of some form of professional cricket league. I will
5 reiterate for the record activity on the property will not be associated with a professional league of any kind. Teams play
6 for the joy of the game promoting a healthy sprit of competition and physical wellness.
7
8 On October 31, 2020, Applicant conducted an informal neighborhood meeting with Holly Creek neighbors explaining
9 this intended cricket use of my land and this application (List of attendees is contained in Attachment 1). Applicant's
10 neighbors understood his intentions and were pleased that the project structure was not invasive upon their enjoyment
11 of their land.
12
13 This project will not alter the rural nature of the property. We are not proposing facilities, lights, or bleachers.
14 Development impact will be minimal.
15
16 The applicant is fully aware there will be other permit required for the project, including applying for a driveway permit
17 form the NC Department of Transportation, presuming issuance of the special use permit. The applicant will also make
18 no use of Holly Creek Lane, a privately maintained property along the eastern property line.
19
20 Our experts, Mr. Tim Hess and Ms. Virginia Ferguson are available to testify to our compliance with the provisions of
21 the UDO.
22
23 There are no similar facilities in the County. This will be a good addition to area and offer opportunities for expanded
24 recreational opportunities. If the Board is agreeable, I would like to call on Mr. Tim Hess to review the site plan.
25
26 Chair Meyers asked if there were any questions for Mr. Mufuka.
27
28 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Mufuka to clarify if there would be spectators observing cricket matches. Mr. Mufuka said
29 there might be individuals coming to the property and watching cricket matches or practices but there would be no
30 amenities for spectators to use. The site would not be spectator friendly. There have been accusations from
31 surrounding property owners this project will generate significant number of spectators. The facts simply do not support
32 this assertion. Mr. Mufuka indicated the applicant believed there would be about 5 to 15 people observing matches or
33 practice sessions at any time.
34
35 Vice-chair Halkiotis asked how many players are on the field during matches. Mr. Mufuka indicated cricket matches
36 involve two teams of 11 players each with approximately 15 to 16 people on the playing field at any given time. This
37 will include umpires or referees. Vice-chair Halkiotis asked how many parking spaces are proposed. Mr. Mufuka
38 indicated the site plan proposes 21 improved spaces and then a grassed overflow parking area. Vice-Chair Halkiotis
39 asked Mr. Mufuka to identify the parking area on the site plan (Mr. Mufuka denoted the improved and overflow parking
40 areas on the site plan).
41
42 Mr. Mufuka entered Applicant Exhibit 1 into the record, specifically a close up site plan rendering of the proposed
43 improved and overflow parking areas.
44
45 Chair Meyers said it looked like there would be approximately 40 parking spaces for the project.
46
47 With no other questions for Mr. Mufuka, Mr. Tim Hess approached the Board. Mr. Hess summarized his credentials as
48 contained in Attachment 1 of the board packet.
49
50 Mr. Hess indicated he was there to review the submitted site plan in support of the special use permit application.
12
Approved 8/9/2021
1
2 Mr. Hess indicated the fields were developed in 2015 or 2016 and his client had been working to address compliance
3 with County land use regulations since. The primary issues his client required to be addressed with this project was
4 ensuring compliance with the special use permit requirements, that vehicular access was from a State maintained road,
5 required landscaping was installed in accordance with Section 6.8 of the UDO, required parking had was improved, and
6 land disturbance was minimized to protect the rural character of the area. (Mr. Hess pulled up the site plan on the main
7 screen so the Board could see the document) As you will note the site plan was designed to ensure the project
8 generated minimal environmental impacts and maintain the rural character of the area. Mr. Hess said the applicant
9 took full advantage of previously approved and permitted land disturbance activities to ensure there was no major
10 grading activities on the property as part of this project. The fields already exist and, as you will note, they are
11 approximately in the center of the property. You have already heard testimony, and the site plan clearly indicates there
12 are no amenities or facilities developed as part of the proposed recreational facility. This includes bleachers,
13 clubhouses, changing facilities, outdoor lighting, scoreboard, and so on. We have tried to limit to the total amount of
14 parking along Old Greensboro to reduce the overall need to grade the property in an attempt to eliminate to the greatest
15 extent practical stormwater impacts to Holly Creek lane and adjoining lots. As indicated required parking, specifically
16 the 21 spaces required by local land use regulations, improved with an all-weather surface. The overflow parking will
17 be natural. The proposed porta-johns will be located here (Mr. Hess identified the location of the site plan) and will be
18 screened. Our objective is to make this development as low impact as possible.
19
20 (Mr. Hess continued to review the site plan with the Board and identified the proposed landscaping area consistent with
21 Section 6.8 of the UDO).
22
23 Mr. Hess indicated the project had preliminary approval from NC Department of Transportation (DOT) for the proposed
24 driveway location.
25
26 Mr. Hess said there had been concerns over the type and classification of foliage proposed for planting. He indicated
27 all trees would be native species and drought tolerant consistent with applicable standards. The hedge material is also
28 important to ensure equipment(i.e. struck balls) do not go off the property onto adjacent property or the roadway.
29
30 Mr. Hess asked if there were any questions. Chair Meyers asked if the proposed plantings are dense enough to stop
31 errant balls from going off the property. Mr. Hess indicated he believed it would be. Mr. Scott asked about the
32 preliminary approval from DOT. Mr. Hess indicated DOT staff had approved the site distance of the proposed driveway
33 from Holly Creek Lane and indicated the layout and design complied with applicable standards. Mr. Hess said his client
34 was still obligated to get construction authorization for the driveway, which will not be granted until there was an
35 approved site plan or in this case an approved special use permit. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board that beginning on
36 page 157 of the agenda packet was an email chain from Mr. DeAngelo Jones and DOT related to the review of the
37 driveway location.
38
39 Mr. Weider raised his hand. Chair Meyers asked him to come forward.
40
41 Mr. Weidner said his question was for Mr. Hess and indicated this is the first time he and his wife had seen this version
42 of the plan. The application submittal contains, from his standpoint, a lot of contradictory information including a
43 breakdown of proposed parking. The original information on the application submittal and site plan indicated there
44 could be a maximum of 70 cars on the property and Mr. Hess appeared to testify there would only be about 47 total
45 cars. Mr. Weidner said the topography of the site does not lend itself to supporting 70 cars. He indicated his question
46 was where exactly was the parking going to go and how many cars it was designed for. Mr. Weidner also indicated the
47 site plan contains what appears to be erroneous measurements and distances of the proposed parking area from
48 adjacent property. (Chair Meyers summarized the questions). Mr. Weidner reminded the Board of the concerns of a
49 neighboring property owner on potential contamination of his shallow well. Mr. Hess said the 71 parking space number
50 was incorrect and the site plan references approximately 47 spaces with 21 improved using an all-weather surface
13
Approved 8/9/2021
1 material and the remaining being overflow parking on a grassy area off Old Greensboro Highway and west of the
2 improved parking area (Mr. Hess denoted the area on the site plan). Mr. Hess indicated cricket would not be played in
3 the rain so there would be no cars on-site when it was raining. Chair Meyers asked about the additional parking and if it
4 would fit in the area denoted on the site plan. Mr. Hess indicated it would fit in the designated area and he respectfully
5 disagreed with Mr. Weider's assessment of the site plan. Mr. Hess said his client made a conscious decision not to
6 pave all the parking to avoid further grading and impervious area on the property. Mr. Hess said the paved parking was
7 approximately 190 ft. from the edge of an adjacent parcel separating the property with the shallow well from the
8 applicant's property (Mr. Bradley Dent's property). This adjacent property was approximately 60 ft. in width meaning
9 the edge of the parking lot (paved portion of the parking lot) was approximately 20 ft. from the shallow well. Grassed
10 parking is approximately 80 ft. from the adjacent property and therefore approximately 140 ft. from the shallow well (Mr.
11 Hess denoted the areas on the site plan). Mr. Weidner concluded by indicating he was very concerned about potential
12 damage to pedestrians and vehicles traveling along Holly Creek Lane from errant hit cricket balls.
13
14 Mr. Nordwall raised his hand. Chair Meyers asked him to come forward.
15
16 Mr. Nordwall indicated this was also his first time seeing this site plan and was disappointed the applicant had not made
17 it available prior to tonight's meeting. He said the application indicates there will be 40 to 50 cars onsite (inaudible
18 discussion) and he was confused with the testimony he had heard this evening. Mr. Mufuka said the anticipated
19 number of cars, as noted in the application, was an estimate based on past performance and that the site plan is
20 consistent with applicable County regulations. Cars would be limited due to the availability of improved parking and
21 grass overflow area. Mr. Harvey informed the Board that page 70 of the agenda packet (Attachment 1) provides the
22 number of cars anticipated and number of anticipated parking spaces necessary.
23
24 Mr. Nordwall said he was concerned about the grass overflow parking as fluids could leach into the ground and impact
25 adjacent property owners. Specifically, if there is a game and a practice occurring at the same time, how many cars
26 would be parked on the property was what he was trying to understand. Mr. Mufuka said the line of questioning is
27 typically reserved for the Board to ask applicants and was concerned a local property owner, who was not within 1,000
28 ft. of the parcel, was asking questions on a matter without identifying how the issue created `special damages' on his
29 parcel. Mr. Mufuka renewed his objection to Mr. Nordwall having standing. With respect to the parking, Mr. Mufuka
30 reminded the Board events are held in a sporadic nature on weekends and certain weeknights during daytime hours
31 only. The proposed parking facilities complied with the County UDO. Mr. Mufuka did not anticipate full capacity use of
32 the recreational facility all the time and did not believe there would be an issue. Chair Meyers asked Mr. Harvey to
33 clarify if the County regulated overflow to which Mr. Harvey said overflow parking is not required and, therefore, not
34 regulated. He went on to say he could not compel the overflow parking to be improved (paved with an all-weather
35 service) as it was not specifically required to be constructed as part of the proposed recreational facility. Mr. Harvey
36 indicated he required the spaces required to serve the project to be improved consistent with Section 6.9 of the UDO.
37 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board a condition could be imposed to require overflow parking to be denoted with
38 landscaping (establishing a boundary). That was up to the Board to discuss with the applicant.
39
40 (Unintelligible)
41
42 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Mufuka to continue. Mr. Mufuka said he felt compelled to respond to concerns over struck
43 cricket balls being a danger to pedestrians or motorists. Mr. Mufuka reminded the Board of Mr. Hess' testimony where
44 he indicated the proposed hedgerow serves not only as a visual buffer but also as a means of preventing equipment
45 from leaving the established playing fields. The fields are approximately 150 ft. from adjacent property lines and
46 roadways. An errant ball will not travel that far.
47
48 Mr. Mufuka asked Ms. Ferguson to come forward and present her testimony. Ms. Ferguson summarized her
49 credentials as detailed in Attachment 1.
50
14
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Ms. Ferguson said she was not only present this evening to offer expert testimony but as a neighboring property owner
2 and had lived in the area most of her life. She indicated it was her personal opinion this would be a great addition to the
3 community.
4
5 Ms. Ferguson reminded the Board they were presented with a fiscal impact assessment this evening. Within that
6 document, there were seven neighborhoods analyzed denoting residential dwellings near various parks with existing
7 athletic fields and other similar infrastructure. Property values near these parks did not decrease and, in fact, increased
8 in certain circumstances. Ms. Ferguson reminded the Board these parks had far more extensive amenities, including
9 outdoor athletic field lights, where this project would not. Ms. Ferguson indicated the assessment, and professional
10 opinion, is that the proposed recreational facility will not have an adverse impact on local property values.
11
12 Ms. Ferguson informed the Board an adjacent parcel, owned by Mr. Robert Maitland (property is north of the subject
13 parcel across Old Greensboro Road) has increased in value since the development of the cricket fields in 2015. Ms.
14 Ferguson informed the Board there is an existing self-storage commercial land use approximately 800 ft. west of Holly
15 Creek Road, which has been there for over 40 years, that also has not had an impact on adjacent property values she
16 has been able to detect. There are several diverse land uses, including:
17 • Farms with event venues,
18 • Single-family residences,
19 • Commercial operations,
20 • Horse facilities,
21 in the area near the Patil property and it was her professional opinion there will be no impact to property values as the
22 result of the proposed recreational facility. Ms. Ferguson said the area is diverse it is development and residential
23 make-up. She believed the proposed cricket field be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Ms. Ferguson
24 concluded by offering additional examples of parcels sold on Holly Creek Lane, after 2015, that did not see a reduction
25 in value due to the development of cricket fields.
26
27 Chair Meyers asked if there were any questions for Ms. Ferguson.
28
29 Mrs. Weidner raised his hand. Chair Meyers asked her to come forward.
30
31 Mrs. Weider identified herself as being a realtor, and that she had known Ms. Ferguson for years, and asked if she lived
32 1,000 ft. from the proposed recreational facility. Ms. Ferguson said her property is within 1,000 ft. but her residence is
33 farther.
34
35 Mr. Nordwall raised his hand. Chair Meyers asked him to come forward.
36
37 Mr. Nordwall asked Ms. Ferguson about the parks she analyzed expressing concern that surrounding residents to
38 several of these parks did not have to drive through the park property to get to their residences. Mr. Nordwall asked
39 how this were comparable to Holly Creek Lane where local residents had to drive past the proposed recreational facility
40 all the time to get to their residences. Mr. Nordwall made the statement that houses will typically see an increase in
41 value due to the nature of the real estate market and that the analysis provided had no real bearing on the question if
42 the proposed recreation facility will have a negative impact on residences off Holly Creek Lane.
43
44 Ms. Ferguson said Mr. Nordwall was right that residents did not necessarily have to drive through the parks she
45 analyzed to get to their houses, but the important issue was that there was a park with recreational amenities near the
46 analyzed residences and there was not a reduction in property value. In most instances, residences were much closer
47 to the park than those residences off Holly Creek Lane. Ms. Ferguson agreed with Mr. Nordwall that it is the nature of
48 real estate for property to appreciate in value but that the issue for the Board to address was will this land use cause
49 adjacent parcels to depreciate in value. Ms. Ferguson said the facts she has presented on local property sales since
15
Approved 8/9/2021
1 the development of the cricket field support the conclusion that the facility has not negatively impacted local property
2 values.
3
4 Mr. Mufuka thanked Ms. Ferguson and informed the Board he next would like to call on Mr. and Mrs. Carl and Laura
5 Lloyd. Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd approached the podium.
6
7 Mr. Lloyd indicated he supported the proposed development reminding the Board the playing fields had been in
8 existence for several years. Mr. Lloyd indicated cars had been parking on the property for some time with no incident.
9 Mr. Lloyd said the cricket field is a low impact project and that his only concern was that there not be major amenities
10 such as lights creating problems for neighbors. He said the people using the field are responsible and are good
11 neighbors and police themselves.
12
13 Mrs. Lloyd agreed this is a reasonable land use for the area and that she has never had a concern over the use of the
14 property for the playing of cricket. She has had a lot of fun watching the people play their matches. Ms. Lloyd indicated
15 she had never seen more than 15 cars at a time and does not believe there will be an issue with cars parking on the
16 property. The use does not generate a lot of noise and she has never noticed a problem with trash or debris blowing off
17 the property onto her lot or onto Holly Creek Lane.
18
19 Mr. Weidner raised his hand. Chair Meyers asked her to come forward.
20
21 Mr. Weidner asked Mr. Lloyd to look at the site plan and asked if the topography of the property running south from Old
22 Greensboro Road was at the same level or depressed (Mr. Weidner pointed to the area where cars would be parking).
23 Mr. Weidner said it was his observation the area where cars were to park was at a lower elevation than the rest of the
24 property and drainage would run towards adjacent property and create problems of runoff as well as pollution for
25 vehicle discharges. Mr. Weidner also indicated that, originally, Mr. Patil had parking east of Holly Creek Lane and that
26 no one had ever parked on the parcel as some tonight had indicated. Mr. Weidner believes the parking area will result
27 in negative environmental impacts to adjacent properties and contaminate local wells due to fluids leaking from parking
28 cars. The low-lying area is not viable for parking of vehicles.
29
30 Mr. Lloyd agreed parking had originally occurred east of Holly Creek Lake but that he believed Mr. Weidner was
31 incorrect on his assumptions related to drainage concerns or potential environmental damage. Mr. Lloyd believed the
32 proposed parking improvement, as depicted on the site plan, would actually help to address some of Mr. Weidner's
33 concerns and address runoff problems.
34
35 Mr. Mufuka came back to the podium.
36
37 Mr. Mufuka informed the Board parking did occur, at one point in time, east of Holly Creek Lane on Mr. Patil's property.
38 To address Planning concern(s) of parking east of Holly Creek Lane, specifically that activities supporting cricket
39 matches were not located on the appropriate property, all cricket field activities were moved to the subject parcel to
40 comply with the UDO.
41
42 Mr. Mufuka indicated he was ready to summarize his presentation and conclude his remarks. Chair Meyers asked him
43 to proceed.
44
45 Mr. Mufuka said there have been several concerns over this project expressed by individuals who were not adjacent to
46 the subject parcel while there was overwhelming support by those residences who currently live next to the cricket
47 fields. There is evidence in the record the project will not have a negative impact on adjacent property values. The site
48 plan demonstrates compliance with applicable land use regulations. Mr. Mufuka indicated there was insufficient
49 evidence in the record demonstrating the project would create special damages on adjacent parcels and no evidence
16
Approved 8/9/2021
1 was presented refuting the experts who have testified for the applicant. Mr. Mufuka indicated the project complies with
2 the UDO and the permit should be granted as he believes his client has checked all the required boxes.
3
4 Chair Meyers asked if there was anyone else present to speak in favor of the application. Seeing none, Chair Meyers
5 asked if there was anyone present to speak against the application. Mr. and Mrs. Weidner raised their hands and were
6 asked to come forward.
7
8 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Weidner to approach the podium and address the Board.
9
10 Good evening. My wife and I moved to Holly Creek Lane approximately 25 years ago trying to retire. I am still working.
11 We chose this area to live because of its rural nature and existing zoning, the Rural Buffer, which only permits low
12 intensity development. When we bought out house, it appraised for approximately$315,000,00 and now appraises for
13 about$660,000.00. A big reason for that is because we are in the Rural Buffer area. If you actually study the issues,
14 and as a general rule, property in the Rural Buffer area sees greater appreciation in value due to the restricted
15 development nature of the zoning district and the area in general. This is one of the reasons we bought the property.
16
17 There are approximately 100 cricket teams that are part of the cricket league referenced within Mr. Patil's application
18 and reference materials. They are not professionals yet but they are working on it. In 2017, teams played almost every
19 weekend even though no special use permit had been applied for. We are here today because local residents have
20 complained about the recreational activities occurring with the required permits allowing the use of property. That is
21 why we are all here today. We have always told Mr. Patil if he wants to play cricket on the property he needs to do it
22 right and get all the required permits.
23
24 The Holly Creek Land cricket facility is private property for the exclusive use of the Triangle Cricket League. There are
25 no trespassing signs all over the place. It is not a public facility. I cannot fly a kite on the property. My grandchildren
26 cannot make play on the land. The public cannot access or use the property. This is a commercial piece of property
27 for the exclusive use of the Triangle Cricket League with no public access. 1 am in opposition to that .... That is my
28 biggest objection to this proposal.
29
30 As far as players go, there are 11 players with four substitutes. If there are four teams playing at any one time that will
31 be 60 total people on the property not counting spectators. Historically, there have never been two teams playing on
32 the field at one time, which means the historical data referenced by the applicant saying there have never been parking
33 or congestion problems is erroneous. I have observed games and even stopped on several occasions to take pictures
34 of cricket activities to document the issues associated with the activity and told them repeatedly to get the special use
35 permit. Once the permit is issued, my opposition would be gone.
36
37 Holly Creek subdivision consists of a 1-mile long gravel country Lane without exit (Mr. Weider referred to his pictures
38 contained in his submittal). I live at the end of it. It is in a beautiful and pristine area of the County. 1 have been
39 granted standing because there is no question, I will have special damages. If you approve this permit, I am going to
40 lose value in my home. This will hurt my retirement. It is that simple. Homes are currently valued at$500,000 to over
41 $1,000,000 each occupying 5 to over 10 acres. All of these values will go down if this permit is granted.
42
43 My pictures show(Mr. Weidner referenced the pictures in his submittal) this is a beautiful country road. What used to
44 be there was Carl's fields where he used to mow for hay. That was great. Now we have a cricket field. We are out in
45 the country here ....
46
47 My objections are the plans presented to us are very confusing and I believe there are numerous errors and
48 contradictions. 1 went to college to be an engineer and used to be and inspector ... 1 am having problems following this
49 plan. We believe anew plan should be submitted to the Board that is accurate before there is a decision.
50
17
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Mr. Patil does not live on Holly Creek Lane. The house, which he has called his residence, is in actuality not his
2 residence, he lives in Morrisville. He rents out the house for income. This is not his residence and suggestions
3 otherwise are not true. Many of the games 1 have watched, Mr. Patil has not been present. Players have left garbage
4 and debris that I have had to pick up from the road and cricket fields on numerous occasions. I believe Mr. Lloyd also
5 has had to pick up garbage. Mr. Patil accepts payments for the use of the cricket fields but my grandchildren and 1 are
6 not allowed to make use of the field. This is not a public facility. This is a profit-making situation. Someday he will sell
7 the property and make even more money because it is a low taxed property right now. Right now, these fields are
8 commercial operations .. he is operating a business in our residential area. He has argued to the Board that a
9 requirement to place a parking lot on his property will devalue his property .... That's in the exhibits. So by his own
10 admission there will be impacts to property due to the development of a paved parking lot.
11
12 In 2013 Mr. Patil, a real estate broker and founder of SIDWIN Corporation, began acquisition of the property on the
13 corner of Old Greensboro Highway and Holly Creek Lane for playing cricket. He ostensibly purchased the land to build
14 a home for himself and invite friends over occasionally to play cricket and so stated at a meeting of Holly Creek
15 neighbors. A residence was subsequently built, but as an investment property only and has been rented since
16 construction. In my opinion, Mr. Patil has no, and never had the, intention to move from his residence in Morrisville to
17 this property.
18
19 My concerns are that without questions this will disturb the value of the property, it is going to cause pollution in the
20 lake, we will now have a very dusty road ... I am opposed to this. If the Board is going to do anything to make me
21 happy, at least you can asked Mr. Patil to submit a new plan that makes sense with elevations and a description of how
22 the parking will be done. It should not be approved until DOT approves the plans. Pulling out of Holly Creek Lane will
23 be dangerous with 40 cars at the cricket field I can promise you that. There is no place where you can find a parking lot
24 with 40 cars along Old Greensboro Highway .. the road is too heavily traveled and with 40 cars trying to leave the
25 cricket field parking lot there are going to be accidents. Cars travel the road at well over 60 miles an hour. This will
26 create a massive public safety issue.
27
28 Mr. Weidner asked for Ms. Leslie Mansfield-Weider to testify as an expert realtor on the impacts to property values.
29 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Weider to approach.
30
31 Ms. Weidner indicated she is a realtor and her credentials are contained in the documents previous supplied to the
32 Board and she read her statement into the record:
33
34 UDO Sections 5.3.2(A)(2)(a) 5.3.2(A)(2)(b)- 5.3.2(A){2)(C) informs that a Special Use Permit to be approved must
35 maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Triangle Cricket League Facility as put forth in
36 Mr. Patil's Application will cause Damage to Real Estate Value to Holly Creek Farms property owners.
37
38 Property Value - The Applicant's proposed Parking will be larger than the Weaver Street Parking Lot in Chapel Hill. As
39 such, it will be unsightly and unattractive therefore, lowering Property Value,
40
41 The Applicant Mr. Patil actually states in a letter written to Orange County Planning that property value will be lowered.
42 QUOTE: field space Is Immediately adjacent to the area where I am building my home. He continues: that paved
43 parking lots or any form of stadium or structure In front of my house would devaluate my property and prevent my family
44 from enjoying quiet and peace at home. Mr. Patil's Application provides two Porta Potties close to the entrance of Holly
45 Creek Lane. Porta Potties will not only be unsightly since they will not only be viewable above the fence he has
46 proposed but will render a feted and foul environment reducing Holly Creek Home Value and those of nearby neighbors
47 on Old Greensboro Road. Buyer's looking for a home, desiring acreage and low density will be similarly discouraged
48 and look elsewhere for another location in a country setting that is still close to town, and in the highly rated Chapel Hill
49 School District.
50
18
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Harmony - Applicant's Plan is not in Harmony with properties in Holly Creek Farms or surrounding area. A lack of
2 Harmony will naturally decrease Property Value in Holly Creek farms as well as nearby residences. Rural Buffer Zoning
3 as stated in the UDO is intended to maintain or enhance existing nearby properties. Nothing in the Applicant's proposed
4 plan will enhance or even maintain existing Harmony. The proposed Cricket Field Park is not comparable to any other
5 businesses located in this Rural Buffer Zone. No other business in RB Zoning along Old Greensboro Highway is
6 comparable to the Applicant's proposed Cricket Facility. No other business in the Rural Buffer Zone has a finished
7 (Asphalt) Parking Lot and Overflow On Grass Parking designed to contain as many 71+ cars. No other business in the
8 Rural Buffer Zone comes near to generating the number of cars and traffic as the proposed Cricket Fields. No other
9 business in the RB Zone comes near to generating as many people that will be participating in the games or others
10 present at the Cricket Park.
11
12 The proposed application informs there are two cricket fields and games will be played during the spring, summer and
13 fall seasons. On any given weekend, one game will bring 22 players, 8 substitutes and up to 4 umpires. Present at the
14 cricket games for only one game may be up to 34 people plus innumerable spectators. If the Triangle Cricket League
15 has games on both Saturday and Sunday, there will be up to 68 team members plus spectators. If they use the second
16 field on any given weekend that will bring 136 people to our little neighborhood. In this case, it does not take a
17 seasoned Realtor such as myself to conclude that Property Value will be negatively affected. While Mr. Patil has an
18 expert Real Estate Witness that disagrees with my opinion, 1 believe the Board will clearly see how Mr. Patil's SUP, if
19 approved, will lower Property Value in Holly Creek Farms and the surrounding neighborhood.
20
21 The Triangle Cricket league presented an Application to change zoning and create a cricket facility in Chatham County.
22 The Chatham County Board in consideration of Noise, Safety and Harmony turned the Application down in February
23 2019. At any rate, the Burden of Proof should rest on the Applicant as stated in an article published by the University of
24 North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government.
25
26 1 ask the Board how can the appearance of beautiful farmland be improved by a cricket park?How does this benefit our
27 residents in Rural Buffer Zoning when team members for the most part live in Raleigh and Morrisville?
28
29 Mr. Patil in a letter written to the Planning Department claims he built his home on Holly Creek Lane to live here.
30
31 He wrote: I wish to emphasize that I purchased the property for the sole purpose of building a home for my family and 1
32 dream of living a quiet life and pursuing our simple joys and passions, including gardening of ornamental plants and
33 vegetables. The home he built was given a Certificate of Occupancy in early 2018. That very same year he rented out
34 the home. It has been rented ever since except for a time in April of 2019 in which he listed the home For Sale with his
35 Expert Witness Realtor, Virginia Ferguson. He took the home off the market and continues to rent out the home.
36
37 While any real estate opinion agreeably is speculative mine is based on the fact that I have lived on Holly Creek Lane
38 for 25 years, the fact that I have experience listing and selling homes in the Holly Creek Subdivision and the fact that 1
39 understand the harmonious country nature of Holly Creek Farms. I ask the Board not to approve Mr. Patti's Application
40 since it will lower property value 12- 15% or more and detrimentally affect Harmony, and General Welfare of Holly
41 Creek Farms.
42
43 Ms. Weidner said the parks and houses mentioned by Mr. Patil's expert are all in urban areas, not rural areas. The
44 analysis uses comparison athletic fields in Efland, Hillsborough, Fuquay-Varina, Chapel Hill, and others. None of these
45 parks are comparable as they are not located in rural areas or developed on lots smaller than 2 acres in area. For a
46 comparison to be viable, we need to look and parks developed in rural areas with rural densities. Ms. Weider said an
47 experienced realtor would never think to use these as comparable developments as they are not the same with respect
48 to the scope, size, and impacts associated with development in a rural area. Ms. Weider indicated the referenced parks
49 have different amenities and facilities that are inconsistent with Mr. Patil's proposal. Some of the referenced parks have
19
Approved 8/9/2021
1 multi-purpose sports fields with areas for baseball, tennis etc. There are no references to any of these parks having
2 visible porta-potties. Again, these examples are not relevant since they are not located in rural areas.
3 Ms. Weidner indicated according to Mr. Patil's expert on property values, values in Holly Creek Farm have doubled in
4 value when compared to urban properties around sport parks. Ms. Weidner believes this is due to the neighborhood's
5 location in the Rural Buffer general use zoning district as well as the highly rated Chapel Hill School District. Ms.
6 Weidner reminded the Board it was her expert opinion property values for the homes off Holly Creek Lane will decrease
7 in value with the issuance of the special use permit.
8
9 Chair Meyers asked if there were any questions for Ms. Weidner.
10
11 Mr. Mufuka raised his hand. Chair Meyers asked Mr. Mufuka to approach the podium.
12
13 Mr. Mufuka objected to both Mr. and Ms. Weidner's testimony. He reminded the Board both parties admit to living at
14 the end of a mile long road and are not adjacent to the existing cricket field. The residents closest to the project site are
15 in support. Mr. Mufuka objected to the Weidner's being conferred standing on this case. Holly Creek Lane will not be
16 used by Mr. Patil or be a part of the cricket field operation. Mr. Mufuka reminded the Board that is why parking was
17 relocated from Mr. Patil's property east of the road to ensure there was no use of Holly Creek Lane. Concerns related
18 to impacts to this private road are baseless. Mr. Mufuka reminded the Board the adjacent property owners, the Lloyd's,
19 have testified they are in favor of the proposal.
20
21 Mr. Mufuka said the main crux of the concern appears to be the use should not be allowed to develop within the Rural
22 Buffer zoning district. The problem is the use is listed within the County UDO as a permitted use of Rural Buffer zoned
23 property presuming issuance of this permit. We would not be here this evening if the use was not considered to be
24 permitted for development. The Weidner's argument that this should not be permitted is, in actuality, a matter that
25 should be discussed at the elected official level with a text amendment to remove recreational facilities as a permitted
26 use within the Rural Buffer district. All you can react to is the review of our permit application request consistent with
27 applicable development standards.
28
29 Mr. Mufuka said Mr. Weidner indicated during his statement if we got the required special use permit, he would no
30 longer have any objections to the operation. That is what we are trying to do.
31
32 Mr. Mufuka indicated Mr. Weidner is arguing against this request as it will be for private use only and not be open to the
33 public. County regulations allow for such development through this process. Mr. Mufuka indicated there was no
34 requirement the proposed recreation facility be open for public use in applicable land use regulations.
35
36 Mr. Mufuka said there are no applicable regulations prohibiting compensation for the use of a permitted recreation
37 facility. The fact that Mr. Patil may be compensated for field usage is not a regulatory issue and is not a means to deny
38 the submitted request.
39
40 Mr. Mufuka reminded the Board Mr. Weidner had said on numerous occasions that as long as the cricket operation
41 complied with applicable regulations he would be satisfied. That is exactly what we are trying to do.
42
43 Mr. Mufuka said the development is in harmony with the area given the fact the County has determined this is an
44 allowable land use so long as a special use permit has been issued. There are numerous non-residential operations
45 along Old Greensboro Road that will have more impacts that this project.
46
47 Mr. Mufuka argued that Ms. Weidner is not an un-biased expert witness and her testimony needs to be taken with that
48 fact in mind.
49
20
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Mr. Mufuka reminded the Board there is documentation in the record that NC DOT has preliminarily approved the
2 proposed driveway access onto Old Greensboro Road. Final approval will not be issued until there is an approved site
3 plan.
4
5 Mr. Mufuka said the project will not involve the erection of amenities or facilities to support the recreational facility so
6 there will be no visual impact to the neighborhood and there will be no development activity inconsistent with the area in
7 general.
8
9 Mr. Mufuka said concerns over Mr. Patil not living in the area are not germane to the request. What is being applied for
10 is a permitted use. Applicable regulations do not require Mr. Patil to live in the area or near the proposed recreation
11 facility.
12
13 Mr. Mufuka suggested the Weidner's have supplied emails from purported realtors arguing the proposed recreation
14 facility will have a negative impact on property values. The Board cannot consider this emails as factual given these
15 individuals have not disclosed their professional qualifications to make these statements and are not present to be
16 cross-examined.
17
18 Chair Meyers thanked Mr. Mufuka for his comments. Chair Meyers indicated the Board would take a brief recess and
19 reconvene the hearing at 9:50 p.m. Chair Meyers called the meeting back to order at 9:50 p.m.
20
21 Chair Meyers asked if there were anyone else looking to speak for or against the request.
22
23 Ms. Weidner raised her hand. Chair Meyers asked her to come to the podium.
24
25 Ms. Weidner said the expert witness for the applicant, specifically Ms. Virginia Ferguson, is also connected to this
26 project as she was the realtor that worked with the Lloyd's to sell their property to Mr. Patil. She then represented Mr.
27 Patil is his attempts to sell his property. Ms. Weidner argued no existing business along Old Greensboro Road
28 compared with what Mr. Patil was requesting. The scope of the project will exceed what is reasonable for the area.
29 Ms. Weidner reminded the Board the applicant's real estate analysis was flawed as it did not compare rural properties
30 near a recreational facility. There are differences in comparing residents in an urban setting, developed to urban
31 densities, when located near recreational facilities as there is an expectation of intensive development.
32
33 Chair Meyers asked if Ms. Weidner could stay on topic and asked if she had anything to add to the discussion that had
34 not already been said.
35
36 Ms. Weidner reminded the Board they had emails in their materials from three realtors indicating property values will be
37 harmed by the development of this use. She further indicated local residents cannot afford an attorney and she was
38 told the only way her arguments would be taken seriously is if they were presented by an attorney. Ms. Weidner
39 indicated she was very serious with her objections to this project and wanted to retire with her husband and continue to
40 live on Holly Creek Lane. This will not be possible if the project, as proposed by Mr. Patil, were approved.
41
42 Mr. Weidner said that Mr. Mufuka continues to challenge his standing, which the Board had already decided on this so
43 it was a moot point. Mr. Weidner indicated he has watched cricket being played on the field and they have never taken
44 appropriate steps to clean up trash. There will be more impacts to our neighborhood when both fields are used at the
45 same time. Mr. Weidner asked for the request to be denied.
46
47 Mr. Nordwall raised his hand. Chair Meyers asked him to come forward.
48
21
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Mr. Nordwall thanked the Board and informed the Board we would not be here this evening unless Mr. Patil had applied
2 for a special use permit when this first started 5 years ago. Mr. Nordwall then read a statement into the record (the
3 statement is contained in the packet of information supplied to the Board):
4
5 In Proposed Use (PU) claims no more than 40 cars per game on weekends, which is consistent with the Operational
6 Characteristics (OC) mention of average anticipated 30- 40 cars. It also stated that the parking area will easily
7 accommodate 71 cars or more.
8
9 The site plan is showing a parking lot for 21 cars and it occupies roughly 51% of the frontage to Old Greensboro RD. I
10 fail to understand how the "parking area"can accommodate 71 cars or more using even the grass overflow suggested
11 in the site plan.
12
13 Furthermore, the site plan indicates that the parking lot apron is 169. 7'from Holly Creek Lane, while in the OC it states
14 that it will be 250'from Holly Creek Lane. This needs to be clarified.
15
16 The PU states that the expectation is 40 cars per game what happens with overflow when/if there is practice at the
17 same time?
18
19 When the position of the parking lot has been resolved, we would like to request that the porta John be placed in a less
20 conspicuous place and be shielded properly from plain view.
21
22 The PU highlights that it will not be a professional league of any kind as defined as a league with compensation and
23 prize money. It states that there will be teams playing for the joy of the game. My request for clarification is "are these
24 teams part of the Triangle Cricket League". If so isn't this indeed league play and not just playing for the joy of the
25 game.
26
27 The PU is referencing the informational call held on October 31, 2020, and it claims that none of the participants had
28 any objections. The Zoom call was the first time anyone saw the site plan and it was hard to see any details. Had the
29 call been accurately positioned with information circulated ahead of time so we could have reviewed the information
30 properly I think the response would have been different. In this case it was positioned as an informational call, so it was
31 not strange that there were no objections. Had I got information before the call, 1 for one would have had objections.
32 After subsequent call it is still not clear what plants would be used to shield the field?
33
34 The attached site plan calls for a field that is 311.4'in diameter which is a lot less than what a regular field Is which can
35 be anywhere from 450-500' in diameter. When the league play was taking place earlier the field border was marked
36 with cones and was all the way up to Holly Creek Lane. There was no off set of the 50' from the ROW. How can we
37 make sure that the buffer will be in place and respected?
38
39 Mr. Nordwall said the applicant should be required to submit a new site plan that is clear and understandable. Mr.
40 Nordwall said there was no evidence in the record indicating the proposed cricket field would not have a negative
41 impact on local property values. As a result it should be denied.
42
43 Mr. Nordwall rejected Mr. Mufuka's assertion that the fields had been there for a long time and there have not been
44 problems. The issue arises because now there is going to be a parking lot constructed and porta-johns placed on the
45 property that local residents will have to look at and will create an impact on the values of neighboring property. Mr.
46 Nordwall said residents will have to drive through this area and continuously see these issues.
47
48 Mr. Mufuka rejected concerns the comparable properties noted in the applicant's impact analysis are not germane
49 indicating the review looks at recreational facilities, some with more amenities than are proposed by Mr. Patil, impact on
50 residential property values. Mr. Mufuka reminded the Board the proposed cricket field will not be accessing Holly Creek
22
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Lane and will have separate access off Old Greensboro Road. There will be no traffic on the private road associated
2 with the operation of the cricket fields.
3
4 Mr. Mufuka indicated Mr. Hess has testified the site plan accurately reflect the proposed development under review this
5 evening.
6
7 Mr. Mufuka said his client is committed to a cap of 60 people total using the facility to ensure there are no impacts to
8 local property owners. The fields have been in place for years and it has taken a long time to complete our assessment
9 on what will and won't work with respect to the operation of the proposed recreation facility.
10
11 Chair Meyers thanked Mr. Mufuka and suggested it was time to close the public hearing.
12
13 Mr. Harvey said he had some items and indicated the applicant had his hand up.
14
15 Chair Meyers thanked Mr. Harvey and asked Mr. Patil and Ms. Vintha Cardoza to come forward.
16
17 Mr. Patil thanked the Board for their time and patience in reviewing this request. Mr. Patil said cricket is a community
18 event and that there is no prize money or payment for people playing the game. These are friends getting together and
19 playing cricket for enjoyment. Mr. Patil agreed there is coordination as to who will play and when, but this is not a
20 professional league and is not played for some form of compensation. Play only occurs on the weekends.
21
22 Mr. Patil says local residents are welcome to come and enjoy the game as either spectators or participants. There are
23 other fields in the triangle where games are played as well.
24
25 Ms. Cardoza thanked the Board and indicated she was going to talk about why the family does not live on the property.
26 Ms. Cardoza said they bought the property with the intention of living there. Unfortunately, the family does not feel
27 comfortable living there at this time due to the animosity of the neighbors and a general feeling they were not welcome.
28
29 Mr. Patil disputed the notion those using the field leave their trash. His friends pick up after themselves and keep the
30 fields clean.
31
32 Mr. Mufuka thanked the Board and indicated he had concluded his presentation of the case. Mr. Mufuka reminded the
33 Board as part of their request there was a vesting request.
34
35 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis closing the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Qandil.
36 VOTE: Unanimous.
37
38 Chair Meyers said the public hearing was now closed and the Board would begin deliberation. Vice-chair Halkiotis
39 asked Mr. Harvey to make any final comments. Mr. Harvey indicated he could not as the public hearing was now
40 closed.
41
42 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis to re-open the public hearing to hear Mr. Harvey's comments, seconded by Mr.
43 Qandil.
44 VOTE: Unanimous.
45
46 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Harvey to proceed. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board they have by-laws indicating the meeting
47 was supposed to end at 10 p.m. (it was 10 p.m.) and he wanted to offer some clarifying points on a few issued and was
48 looking for direction on how the Board wanted to proceed.
49
23
Approved 8/9/2021
1 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board on page 63 of the agenda packet (previously testified to and entered into the record)
2 were the applicable submittal requirements for the project. Mr. Harvey reviewed the requirements, and noted, the
3 applicant had complied with all standards concerning submittal of the application. Mr. Harvey indicated there had been
4 some concerns from the public the applicant had provided contradictory information. The Board will have to determine
5 if there is sufficient evidence in the record to render a decision.
6
7 Mr. Harvey said he and Mr. Hess and both testified on the elements of the site plan. Tonight was the first time he had
8 seen a revised exhibit establishing a total cap on overflow parking to 25 spaces. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board there
9 had been discussion about a potential condition to denote the boundary of the overflow parking with a hedgerow. That
10 is something the Board can consider. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board even if the permit is approved, the applicant still
11 has to go through formal site plan review, which will include formal approval of a landscape plan. Mr. Harvey said he
12 and Mr. Hess had already discussed the requirements of this document.
13
14 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board there are several conditions associated with this permit, one of which indicated there
15 will be no use of Holly Creek Lane by the proposed recreational facility.
16
17 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board there will be no outdoor lights, public address system or other amenities on the
18 property. The only way they can be added is if the applicant amended the site plan through a separate public hearing
19 process.
20
21 Mr. Harvey said page on 167 of the agenda packet contains the applicant's suggested findings of fact for deliberation
22 and page 174 contains the script outlining the motions necessary to either approve or deny the request.
23
24 Vice-chair Halkiotis asked about the conditions (page 65) and asked Mr. Harvey about the proposed 21 improved
25 parking spaces and the 25 overflow grass parking spaces if the conditions could be modified to establish that level of
26 specificity. Mr. Harvey said the Board had that ability and reminded that is what the applicant had offered to abide by.
27 Mr. Harvey also indicated he had further suggested the grass parking area be denoted with a vegetative buffer.
28
29 Vice-chair Halkiotis thanked Mr. Harvey and asked if a special use permit is granted, it is granted with the conditions
30 and proposal brought before the Board. Mr. Harvey indicated if the permit is approved, all conditions run with the
31 property and have to be incorporated into the actual development of the project. Vice-chair Halkiotis expressed
32 concern over the fact staff had not seen, in advance, the revised site plan submitted this evening. Mr. Harvey said he
33 had reviewed the site plan with Mr. Hess and that in addressing these concerns there would be a cumulative limit of
34 grass overflow parking to 25 cars and it would be no closer than 80 ft. from the western property line. Vice-chair
35 Halkiotis asked if Mr. Harvey was still recommending the hedgerow to denote the overflow parking area to which Mr.
36 Harvey said he was.
37
38 Vice-chair Halkiotis asked if staff had any other recommended conditions. Mr. Harvey said he did not have any
39 additional concerns. The applicant had indicated they would screen the porta-letts and that cricket use would only
40 occur from April to October, meaning the porta-letts would not be on the property after the conclusion of the season. It
41 might be prudent to make sure the conditions reference this testimony.
42
43 Mr. Qandil asked about the use of parking spaces, especially the grass overflow parking and potential for fluids to leak
44 from the cars and be absorbed into the ground. Mr. Qandil asked if there was any value at requiring more spaces be
45 improved to address this concern. Mr. Harvey suggested the applicant was the best party to respond to that question,
46 reminding the Board what he could require as part of enforcing the UDO. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board there could
47 be cost issues as well as additional compliance issues given the parcels location within a watershed protection overlay
48 district.
49
50 Mr. Qandil stated Mr. Harvey had actually answered his question.
24
Approved 8/9/2021
1 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Qandil.
2 VOTE: Unanimous.
3
4 Chair Meyers indicated is was now 10:20 p.m. and asked what the Board's pleasure was at this time.
5
6 Vice-chair Halkiotis said all parties were here but it was very late and there was no assurance how long discussion
7 would take. She suggested the meeting should be adjourned so that appropriate time could be given to deliberations.
8
9 Mr. James Bryan indicated the public hearing is closed so there are no issues with adjourning to a new meeting data to
10 deliberate. The motion will need to adjourn to a date and time certain to avoid re-advertising. Mr. Bryan indicated there
11 is availability on Monday January 25, 2021 where the Board could begin deliberation.
12
13 There was general discussion amongst the Board on when they could begin deliberation.
14
15 MOTION made by Mr. Qandil to adjourn the meeting to January 25, 2021 to begin deliberation, seconded by Mr. Scott.
16 VOTE: Unanimous.
17
18
19 AGENDA ITEM 7: ADJOURNMENT
20
21 MOTION made by Mr. Scott to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Qandil.
22 VOTE: Unanimous.
23
24 26 August 2021
25 LEON MEYERS,CHAIR
25